Thammasat University’s recent decision to ban Nitirat activity on its premises has threatened its reputation as a beacon of free speech and a locus of political activism as well as risked radicalizing the movement. A unanimous decision was reached on January 30 “to disallow any campaign to amend Article 112 because the university is a government office and permitting such activity could mislead the public to believe the university agrees with such movement. This could create major rifts and possibly incite violent conflict within the university itself.”[1]

It’s easy to direct blame on the dean. After all it’s public knowledge that the rector himself does not favour the Nitirat group, neither do some of the TU’s own law faculty members.[3] Yet, the decision to completely ban Nitirat activity altogether is shutting down an important avenue of public political discourse. This has both normative and practical ramifications. By blocking people from participating in public discussion, especially on an important, albeit highly controversial, issue such as Article 112, it violates the university’s own norms and goes against its long history of providing public space in Thailand’s political history. Moreover, the move has, in effect, greatly undermined the legitimacy of the group, which is composed largely of Thammasat University’s own faculty members.

On a practical level, the ban risks radicalizing the Nitirat group by depriving people of a key area of public discourse. Already, Nitirat’s activity has been marginalized by much of the mainstream media (particularly TV), with a notable exception of Matichon, Bangkok Post and Thai PBS.[4] Political parties of all stripes have actively disassociated themselves from the group. The PAD has come out strongly against the Nitirat, while the Red Shirts remain on the fence about its position. “The Red Shirts do not support the Nitirat’s proposal to amend Article 112. However, I admit some sections of the Reds are in agreement with this,” says Peau Thai MP Korkaew Pikulthong.[5] Much of the Nitirat’s activity had, thus far, taken placed or been reported largely on university campuses, alternative media outlets and online. Closing off the group’s main public venue could push the group further to the edge.

“We know the Article [112] won’t get amended because it won’t pass the parliamentary process. But the constitution permits citizens to submit a petition to amend the law. Regardless of the outcome, we as citizens have the right to express our opinion,” argues Nitirat leader, Dr. Worajade Pakeerat.[6]

Thammasat’s decision to draw a red line on what political activity is permitted on campus is setting precedents for other educational institutions. King Prajadiphok Institute called the Nitirat “a group of people who call themselves ‘academics’ whose aim is to violate the monarchical institution.”[7] In addition, Mahasarakam University students have been prohibited from holding public talks on Article 112 on campus.[8]

Universities should be places where debate and discussion is opened up, not closed down.

[4][4] Less mainstream media that regularly reports on Nitirat activity is Prachatai, Voice TV and social media

[5][5] Note: Other Red Shirt Peau Thai MPs, such as Jatuporn and Natthawut, claimed the UDD does not support the Nitirat group. Jatuporn even went further by warning his fellow Red Shirts that by supporting the Nitirat, they could be calling for a military intervention. http://www.manager.co.th/Home/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9550000013468

Share this:

30 Comments

Speaking as a staff member at Thammasat, I’m very disappointed by this decision.

Nithirat have not issued death threats or burnt people in effigy. They have not even called for disobedience to the current law. They have legitimately as citizens and academics advocated changes in the law. They have committed no crimes. Yet it is they who are being forbidden from speaking.

Dr Somkid has referred elsewhere to previous events in Thammasat’s history as a justification for this suppression of academic freedom. The rationale seems to be that free speech and enquiry – which is all that Nithirat can be accused of – may provoke violent reactions from those who are against free speech and enquiry and in favour of violent suppression of it when they don’t agree with it.

I understand his fears but his remedy gets it all wrong.

It is not right to sign up to a protection racket. Some critics of Nithirat are threatening violence if Nithirat is not shut up. Caving in to these threats is not the right thing to do.

What should be suppressed is not Nithirat’s discussion of Article 112 but the violent threats that are made against them. These are criminal actions that should be prosecuted. Dr Somkid should be insisting that this happens and ensuring the protection of his staff.

This brings back memories of the case of Salman Rushdie. Rushdie was condemned in some quarters for having inspired the death threats (and actual murders of people who were associated with the publication of The Satanic Verses). He was apparently to blame for having upset violent fanatics. And therefore these critics said, he should apologize and shut up. These were often liberal critics who claimed that they supported freedom of speech but their logic was that freedom of speech could only be retained by not actually exercising it.

A couple of weeks ago I learnt that Dr Somkid had resisted pressure from similar fanatics and had allowed the student Karn Thoop to study at Thammasat. It was clear that he didn’t agree with her political opinions but he rightly saw her enrolment as having nothing to do with his personal opinions. This was the right thing to do.

I’m sure it’s difficult being Rector of Thammasat. But being “righteous and appropriate” is part of the job description and it is what he is paid for. I hope Rector Somkid who I’m sure has the best interests of the university and its members at heart will reverse this shocking decision.

Somkid actually has a good point, although in his pragmatism he’s acknowledging his own cowardice.

He criticizes Nitirat -> he gets criticized by Nitirat.
He gives in to Nitirat -> he gets critized even more by the royalists.

So he decides to make a pragmatic decision and give in to the louder voices of the royalists, regardless of “righteous or appropriate”. He’s figured that it’s just too darn hard to make a principled stand, and is basing his decision on whichever dog barks loudest.

This cowardice doesn’t exactly make him a role model to the student body, but then again that’s why he’s an administrator rather than an instructor. Hopefully, he’ll get a promotion through to the Royal Institute rather than shape the next generation of Thammasat graduates.

“This could create major rifts and possibly incite violent conflict within the university itself.”

rephrased . . .

“Making controversial proposals to change the constitution will result in you getting violently attacked. It is safer that we suppress your speech. Plus, it’s easier to suppress what you say than present a reasoned counter-argument.”

It is nothing (much) to do with the faculty Dean, reactionary law faculty colleagues of Nittirat, or the Rector, but in fact the amaat who pressured Somkit Lertpaithoon. At the same time Thammasat University Alumni (Chuan Lekpai has been told by higher authority to start agitating here) tightening the screws. Somkit was actually called in by Sumet Tantivejkul, a ever powerful figure (confidant of the monarch, as well as sitting on numerous royal committees and enterprise boards) to put the screws on Nittirat and forbid them from holding discussions on 112 on campus. In this scenario we can only expect greater conflict ahead as Nittirat is now seen as a real threat and generates a large following; a group to be taken more seriously. The amaat see it as time to restrict Nittirat before it gets too influential. Thammasat, as part of the amaat crackdown, are also proposing to ban any celebrations to Pridi and Puey…

> “Thammasat’s decision to draw a red line on what political activity is permitted on campus is setting precedents for other educational institutions.”

Setting precedents for other institutions, and more importantly, their own. Thammasat is regarded favorably by genuine democrats (note, small “d”) – now when any group attempts to be proactive about anything at Thammasat – from LM to democracy to free speech all the way down to G&L – the dean will hear a clamour for it to be shut down. To all intents the campaign will be a witch hunt – it will be a campaign focused at one person with perceived weaknesses – and the target will not display the fortitude that Karnthoop displayed.

What is the role of actual government, elected with so much of popular support, on this issue? What is their proposal on the article 112? do they want to change constitution just for their own agenda or for freedom speech agenda too? maybe the words of Chuan Leekpai should be taken:
“Democrat Party chief adviser Mr Chuan said the Nitirat group had every right to air its opinions but he personally believed any attempt to rewrite Section 8 of the constitution and Article 112 of the Criminal Code would not be successful.
The Democrats have a clear stance against any movement to amend Section 8 of the charter, which prohibits any individual from insulting the King, and Section 112 of the Criminal Code, better known as the lese majeste law, he said.” http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/277287/political-heavyweights-join-fight-against-nitirat
Maybe the shirts are turning orange now?

Somkhit is not a “pragmatist,” but a typical technocratic opportunist.

As far as Nittirat’s proposals to rewrite the constitution of 2007 are concerned, he has also a conflict of interest, because he was the secretary of the Constitution Drafting Committee. This is another reason why he has bad feelings towards Nittirat, especially Worajet.

In the early days of the anti-Thaksin rallies (raygarn sapda. or whatever it was called) I used to attend their meetings in the main hall at Thammasat’s Tha Prajant campus. Curiously enough, the reason given by the then Rector for opening the hall to the yellow shirts (avant le lettre) was that Thammasat was a public university. Exactly the reason that the present rector has given for not allowing criticism of 112. Strange.

“Aim Sinpeng” (in this piece) has entirely missed the point which explains Rector Somkit’s vacillation, weakness and indecisiveness. He, like the current government, are being held at ransom by the amaat regime. No point in blaming messengers even though it would be nice for someone out there to have the courage to take a moral stand even though the outcome would be their personal loss…(life, threat to family and/or career) No one in public office has the veracity or guts right now to challenge the amaat regime and its historic scheming to maintain contiguous summit privileges/benefits…Lets stop blaming messengers and get to the core of the problem

At the same time, Phuea Thai’s stance towards any amendment of 112 makes sense if you believe in the pre-election “backroom bargain” between Thaksin, the military and allegedly the palace. This deal was alleged by Shawn Crispin (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MF30Ae01.html) and the gist of it was: we let you govern if you stay away from certain issues.
I had kind of dismissed the whole notion of such a deal as a bit far-fetched. But the vehemence of PT’s stance on this makes you wonder whether there is some truth to it.

Though Sunday’s Khon Kaen discussion proceeded without incident, KKU’s academics were conspicuously absent, with much of the modest crowd composed of local Red Shirts, independent community members, and student activists.

Boonwat Chumpradit, a Khon Kaen Red Shirt villager in attendance, found the silence of KKU’s professors troubling. “Professors at the university should be the ones leadings us,” she said. “We shouldn’t have to be the ones leading them.”

Still, the campaign is so politically treacherous that even a professor from the Nitirat group declined to attend Khon Kaen’s meeting, telling the event’s organizer that it might endanger his relationship with his employer, Thammasat University. His fears seem to have been justified. The following day, Thammasat University rector Somkit Lertpaithoon announced on his Facebook page that Nitirat was banned from meeting on university property.

As Sunday afternoon’s seminar came to a close and the floor was opened up to audience members, one KKU student took the microphone and pleaded for more action. “After we sign the petitions, we need to get in touch with our Pheu Thai representatives,” he said. “We are the ones who elected these representatives and now we need to get in touch with them and get them to change this law.”

And right after they contact their PT ‘representatives’ they’ll need to face the facts : There will be no help coming from the cowardly professional classes… academic or political… who think they have something to lose.

It’s up to the people themselves. Betrayed by everyone, they are the only ones who really want a democracy in Thailand… or anywhere else on earth.

A unanimous decision was reached on January 30 “to disallow any campaign to amend Article 112 because the university is a government office and permitting such activity could mislead the public to believe the university agrees with such movement. This could create major rifts and possibly incite violent conflict within the university itself.”

This is just unbelievable. I know Thammasat. I believe two or three years ago, I personally witnessed that Thammasat Rangsit allowed the Yellows to use their facilities for some kind of rally or meeting. I remember this distinctly because of the unforgettable traffic jam inside the campus caused by vehicles and buses. (not sure if Somkit was already the Rector at that time)

By allowing the Yellows to use Thammasat’s facilities, did the public honestly believed that the “university agreed with the movement” of the yellows? yes…. no….. maybe……

The funny thing is, the monarchists ought to be welcoming Nitirat’s proposals. They’re not trying to remove the lese majeste law, but only make its application more workable and its sentences less draconian. Both of which need to happen prior to succession. Applying the law in its current form to protect the “reputation” of Junior really is a recipe for disaster, given how the Thai people already feel about him. It amazes me the elites can’t come out of their mental bunker and see this.

Thammasat University has allowed meetings of both political groupings on its premises over the past years of conflict. Sondhi L. has held in 2005 meetings there, later, after the coup, the anti 19th September Coup network has held its initial meetings at the football field and used Thammasat as starting point for its early anti coup marches in 2006/2007. The PAD held its meeting in spring 2008 there, and in 2009 in Thammasat’s Rangsit Campus’ sports stadium the festivities of the founding of the New Politics Party were held. Notable were also many Red Shirt affiliated seminars and concerts in the auditorium of the Ta Pa Chan Campus.
Late 2011 Siam Samakki held a meeting at the Pridi Statue there (which is somewhat ironic…).

The problem here is that the 112 issue and everything surrounding is filled with fear (and to some part this fear is justified), and paralyzes even many people who are not known to be monarchists.
There is fear over being forced to take a position, fear over being attacked by both sides, fear over personal security, fear over Thailand loosing it’s monarchy and therefore its perceived national (and personal) identity, fear over Thailand discontinuing its path to development, and foremost – fear of violence.

What appears as a reasonable discussion here can easily translate into violence on the streets over this ideologically driven point. On both sides of the debate are factions existing who are ready and willing to use violence (not to mention the constant threat of violence by the military in its role as supreme defender of the monarchy) – and sadly, the only point that not only radicals of both sides appear to agree upon is that violence is a very likely development.

It seems presently that even proposals by several “liberal monarchist” groups for certain amendments to the 112 laws fell on deaf ears.

The democratically elected government should be standing up for the right… the necessity… to debate and discuss this and the other constitutional issues.

They should remind everyone that Thailand is a democracy, that that is the reason they are in power, that they are going to do what they were put in power to do… defend democracy and forestall another coup.

They should have the police out to protect and to serve. They should publicly bring up 6 October and say, “That is not going to happen again on our watch”.

Yep, there is a fear of violence. But plenty are not afraid and realise that abandoning principles is not an answer to threats.

I also think the endless comparisons to 1976 are misplaced. There is no Red Gaur militia, no neighbouring countries collapsing into communism and no CPT. As someone else said – why not just use the police to keep the few PAD crazies out? As in 2008, you have to question who is backing these tiny protests and the violence and intimidation surrounding them.

And yes, there is a fear of change.

But when that “change” does come, as it inevitably will, I think plenty of Thais will realise life goes on, things are ok, the world hasn’t ended and new things can come into being.

And the reasons that the hysteria is getting so ramped up about 112 is that the entire “project” is in complete crisis, spiralling downwards into an inevitable collapse. If it was stable, secure and at the height of its powers this wouldn’t be happening. But it isn’t.

Why? Because it refuses to reform and thereby accommodate the general will of the Thai people.

The reasons for this outpouring of hysteria, threats etc are nothing to do with those asking for reforms/change but everything to do with those who don’t want any change at all. That’s the root cause of this. Not those seeking a pretty ordinary debate or seeking mild reforms.

It was a famous British socialist Nye Bevin who once said “Fascism… is the future refusing to be born.”

Question facing Thailand right now is how far are those with the guns prepared to go to hold back the future.

Nick Nostitz:
Of course I understand the special sensitivity of 112 laws and the “ideologically driven points” that have been hammered unceasingly on Thai heads for centuries and easily whipped up into violent frenzy against dissenters and apostates by people with vested interests in the system. I’ve lived here long enough to realize the antithetical viciousness that coexist in direct proportion to the inscrutiable smiles among Thais that unfortunately many foreigners find bewilderingly disarming.

My commentary was on the quote “permitting such activity could mislead the public to believe the university agrees with such movement”. I’ve been in Thai academia long enough to see many such unending illogical thinking patterns that students absorb from Ajarns that prevents them from thinking and even saying “why not”?

As an observer, what I am interested is to understand how and why this movement occurred at this particular time. If in the past, questioning lese majeste laws could be considered almost lese majeste itself, how is it that this Nittirat group (some of whom I know) became suddenly courageous to publicly question what is a delicate and sensitive matter close to the hearts of Thais?

I belong to the ones who fear violence – actually, i am quite terrified of it. And i think that i have ample reasons to be so, given all that occurred in the past years (quite often in front of my camera).

While you are right in the point that we have to be careful when drawing comparisons with ’76, the present conflict is in direct relation to past (unsolved or barely patched up) conflicts within Thai society. Many players of that era are still players today.
As to violent groups – we may not have “Red Gaur” (yet former members of this and other groups are still somewhat active today on both (!) sides), but there are on both sides several violent groups with different levels of organizational capability, and also politicians, military and police officers with sufficient “look nong” to have formidable militias in case of future violent developments.

Another unknown factor here is that the stakes in this game are very high – never before has the legitimacy of the monarchy been questioned so directly and on such a large scale especially in the common sectors of Thai society, and we have no precedent in Thai society how royalist sectors of Thai society may react once they have reached their consensus on how to counter this perceived threat to what they define as the Thai state. What we do know though is that throughout modern Thai history violent reactions against perceived threats to the state more often than not followed after periods of inactivity. We can only hope that this time things will be different.

The PAD is not (!) a main player anymore, presently. It has been replaced with another alliance with possibly far more potential (it remains to be seen though if this alliance will be able to stay together).
I would not though judge from the number of protesters of any group their potential – many of these groups are like icebergs: what you see in the open is just the tip of what lurks below. Influential figures can muster quickly quite large numbers of underlings depending on need.

Yes, there is a looming crisis. And exactly that makes things so volatile. How far will those (on both sides) with guns go? I guess 2010 has shown us that they may go quite far (and in 2010 both sides held back).
Especially when increasingly the most sensitive issue is at stake.

“john francis lee”, “Sam Deedes”:

I think it is wishful thinking to expect the police force to fulfill their “constitutional” role in this conflict as it would in a modern society. As we all know, Thailand is not exactly a modern society, and it has a police force that exactly reflects the position and inner conflicts of its society including all the increasingly conflicting loyalties of a somewhat collapsing paternalistic patronage system.

“Khon Ngai Ngai”:

I am convinced that the developments we see now, and especially the demands of Nitirat, are a logical development of first the history of the past decades, and secondly the emergence of the Red/Yellow conflict. It was inevitable. Change/progress/conflict is a historical force – social stability is a pipe dream.
I also believe that the compromises offered by Nitirat and moderate counterparts of the royalist sectors will be rejected due to pressures of the more radical sectors of their respective sides, and that we may see further radicalization and quite possibly more violence.
Academia and reasonable discussion/debate is only one aspect, but we should not/cannot underestimate the force of both the street and non-academic elites – there the game is played according to different and quite unpleasant rules.

Just as history is littered with terrible acts of violence so it is also filled with those who strive to change things as peacefully as possible and who show great courage in the face of such intimidation.

In my view those Thais, like Nitirat, who are now choosing to show courage in the face of these threats from the neo-fascist PAD hate mobs and their backers, need to be supported not told they are “going too far”.

As for your analysis that things have “never gone this far before,” well, any student of Thai history will tell you to look at 1932. And of course no direct equivalence can be drawn with today but that period was certainly emblematic of a hegemonic shift of the sort we are witnessing today.

Also, for both me and you, this isn’t really “our fight.” I’m sure if we’d both been alive when fascism was running rampant over Europe we might have felt strongly enough to challenge it directly then, even if we might both have been terrified.

And that for me is the key – people still act even though they are scared. The most significant part of the Red Shirt protests was when they came back onto the streets in their tens of thousands AFTER the massacre. This showed genuine courage, resolution and fortitude. It also showed that they might’ve been blooded but they were unbowed.

“Thammasat University rector Somkit Lertpaithoon reaffirmed yesterday that the university board had not entirely banned nor singled out Nitirat. He said the ban applied to any campaigning related to Article 112 on the university grounds, whether by Nitirat or anyone else.”

Of course, what he said and actual enforcement may or may not be in agreement . . .

That’s simple. Somkit’s predecessor was Surapon Nitikraipot. Both belong to the same political-academic puak, which is close to the Democrat party. During the later PAD protests, Suraphon joined the calls for the use of article 7 to put an end to the Thaksin government. The leader of this puak is the former TU president Noranit Setthabut, who is now the president of TU’s university council. Needless to say that this puak collaborated with the coup plotters of 2006. Thus, that Worajet’s groups wants to declare their coup-induced legal “achievements” ( the constitution of 2007, etc.) invalid does not go down well with them…

The most recent development was that Dr. Worajait was attacked by a man in the parking lot of the Faculty of Law at Thammasat University. Let all who are fair -minded join in cheering up Dr. Worajait and wish him all measures of courage.